Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

by **Sniper08** on Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:32 am

the right side of the river bed just doesnt look right to be but since i have no graphical skill i cant make a sugg to fix it.

have you decided to scrap the ibutho bonus system? instead just giving +2?

by **koontz1973** on Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:06 am

Sniper08 wrote:the right side of the river bed just doesnt look right to be but since i have no graphical skill i cant make a sugg to fix it.

have you decided to scrap the ibutho bonus system? instead just giving +2?

Not scrapped it but until a way can be found to implement it, I will stick with this.
With the right side of the river, no real idea on what you mean by not looking right. It might be that it looks steeper then the left or also to bight. Those are easy to sort out.

by **TaCktiX** on Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:46 pm

A few more typoes to correct:
"Chieftains control..." and the other bad spellings of Chieftain.

As for the river, it's because the right side of the river doesn't "dip" below the bushes and road which by reason are "above" it. I would consider a drop shadow on the bushes to fix the disparity.

And I know this is getting graphically-oriented, but I'm running out of gameplay issues at present. All the textures except the British core and the river look under-detailed compared to those and the impassables. It's missing the overall crispness that some sections of the map have terrifically. This is the same problem with the little men: crispness. If they didn't seem like they were indistinct, they'd look better.

by **zimmah** on Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:25 pm

i don't see any front line.

by **koontz1973** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:03 am

TaCktiX wrote:A few more typoes to correct:
"Chieftains control..." and the other bad spellings of Chieftain.

Fixed

TaCktiX wrote:As for the river, it's because the right side of the river doesn't "dip" below the bushes and road which by reason are "above" it. I would consider a drop shadow on the bushes to fix the disparity.

And I know this is getting graphically-oriented, but I'm running out of gameplay issues at present. All the textures except the British core and the river look under-detailed compared to those and the impassables. It's missing the overall crispness that some sections of the map have terrifically. This is the same problem with the little men: crispness. If they didn't seem like they were indistinct, they'd look better.

Fixed the river by running the sandy shale along the whole edge.
Never minded anyone pointing out anything to do graphically.
As for the final touches, I intend to add more but did not want to crowd the map to much and end up with a Waterloo. The little men are only temporary untill I find the right symbols and colours. On this version is the first set.

zimmah wrote:i don't see any front line.

Version 22.

Click image to enlarge.

New Symbols to replace little men. (The symbols might be a little bright in colours, but the symbols are correct with shape and colour).
Spelling mistake corrected.
River bank fixed.
Drop shadows added to areas.
Trees fixed to be more uniformed.

by **Sniper08** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:49 am

why change the ppl to colours and symbols? i liked the way the zulus were before this and i like the british soldiers on bromhead and chard.

as for the river the right side looks thicker than the left and it looks more raised on the side than the left

by **koontz1973** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:22 am

Sniper08 wrote:why change the ppl to colours and symbols? i liked the way the zulus were before this and i like the british soldiers on bromhead and chard.

as for the river the right side looks thicker than the left and it looks more raised on the side than the left

The little figures may come back. Just trying out new ideas to see if people like them.

With the dry river, it looks different as the left bank is in shadow while the right has light on it. I can get both levels more equal.

by **Sniper08** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:25 am

well i definetly dont like the change,the characters were great for the map as it gave a historical feel to it.

also Ayize left bank looks completely different to the rest of the left bank,it looks a lot thicker .

by **Gillipig** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:43 am

I like the idea. It's original!

by **koontz1973** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:15 am

Sniper08 wrote:well i definetly dont like the change,the characters were great for the map as it gave a historical feel to it.

also Ayize left bank looks completely different to the rest of the left bank,it looks a lot thicker .

Just gone and fixed the banks. Should look better for the next update. looking at getting the figures back in. The current emblems are traditional Zulu shapes and colours so they match the map but just look bloody awful.

by **Seamus76** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:58 pm

Looking good Koontz.

I much prefer the figures over the emblems as well.

by **cairnswk** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:34 pm

Seamus76 wrote:Looking good Koontz.

I much prefer the figures over the emblems as well.

Here, here.

by **koontz1973** on Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:54 am

V.23

Click image to enlarge.

Little figures are back.

Fixed the dry river bed. Should be more even on both sides now.
Other small little fixes like moving army numbers and names to be more central.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:19 am

Been thinking of a way to have the bonuses the way I wanted them and I believe I have found a way to have them.

Hold any Chieftain and
2 Zulus in the same iButho +2
3 Zulus in the same iButho +3

You might not like it as a bonus system but that should work. People, if they are confused at first should work it out after a few rounds or a game.

by **natty dread** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:25 am

koontz1973 wrote:People, if they are confused at first should work it out after a few rounds or a game.

That's not good enough. To put it bluntly, that's a cop out - you can't just say "well, they'll know how it works after they play a few games" - a map's rules need to be obvious from the first game.

Also, saying that there are already maps that don't explain their rules clearly... that is just another excuse - sorry for saying it bluntly but it's how it is. Just because there are other maps that do not explain their rules clearly is no reason to make another map that is hard to understand.

If you insist going through with this 2/3 bonus scheme of yours, you need to make it exceptionally clear that the bonuses continue beyond the 3rd territory held...

I would suggest something like this:

Holding a Chieftain gives you:
+2 for each 2 Zulus in the same ibutho
An odd number of Zulus above 2 gives an extra +1

by **koontz1973** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:33 am

It is only a thought. You know how it is, you come up with an idea and really want it, you just keep trying for it. I know that it is likely not going in but that does not stop me from wanting it. Was looking at Seamus map (Tribal War) and he has something similar to it, that is what prompted me to try again.

Cannot blame a guy for trying.

by **natty dread** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:38 am

All I'm saying is, if you want to use that bonus scheme, you need to make sure it is explained clearly enough - you can't just assume that the player will "get it after a few games"...

by **koontz1973** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:40 am

It will stay as is now. +2 for every 2. That should be more than enough.

by **Sniper08** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:50 am

Nice to see the figures back they look much better than the last update and the river bed looks a lot better.

i spotted a spelling mistake in the legend "Chieftains controll" there should only be one l.

Also the spacing between each letter in the wording in the legend seems off for some words such as front and reverts on the last line.

natty_dread wrote:I would suggest something like this:

Holding a Chieftain gives you:
+2 for each 2 Zulus in the same ibutho
An odd number of Zulus above 2 gives an extra +1

if koon really wants this bonus system, i think this is the best way to explain it or atleast build the bonus system around this suggestion.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:15 am

V.24

Click image to enlarge.

Cleaned up little men.
Sorted the spelling.
Cleaned up dry riverbed.
Sorted out spacing with wording.
Moved around army numbers and names to be more central.
Moved River Warriors to more prominent positions.

Game play stamp would be nice now as spoils and spelling have been sorted.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:02 am

I think you should drop the chieftain auto-deploy down to 1, since players will go for them for land bonus purposes, regardless of the auto-deploy. Plus, with chieftains of varying power and the fact that there's only 7 of them, they need to be more breakable. Perhaps even dropping the auto-deploy would be better.

-Sully

by **TaCktiX** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:12 am

Now that I look at it, I agree with Sully. The map starting out has VERY few bonuses aside from the river warriors, as all the iButho bonuses require a neutraled Chieftain. So instead of the current 5 neutral / +3 autodeploy, how about a 3 neutral / +1 autodeploy? It's still powerful, but it'll allow more bonuses to get into the mix early-game instead of it being a mass of lucky dice (which is what most low-bonus games turn into).

by **koontz1973** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:23 am

More than happy to vary the auto deploy aspect of the Chieftains, but I need an incentive to go for them. With 5 neutrals, they are not going to be easy to grab and hold. By lowering the auto deploy to 1 may not be enough of an incentive to go for them in small games. I also need to balance out the effect then of the Shaka iButho that will lose 3 per round and only gain 3 (1 AD+2bonus). Think of it this way, the auto deploy negates the -1 decay.

EDIT.
How about 3 neutrals and +2AD. for the same reasons as above.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:45 am

Click image to enlarge.

Done Chieftain neutrals.
And legend to +2 AD. Previous post for reason.

The only problem with this configuration is that no one will play for Shaka iButho so that becomes dead space.

by **iancanton** on Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:33 am

koontz1973 wrote:How about 3 neutrals and +2AD. for the same reasons as above.

this certainly provides more early-game options than 5 neutrals for +3 auto-deploy. the castle in castle lands, which is +2 auto-deploy, has 4 neutrals and it's not always taken.

koontz1973 wrote:11 territs start as river warriors (Need to be programmed with start position) Max of 3 per player.

code these as underlying neutral start positions otherwise, in 2-player and 3-player games, at least one player will probably start with +3 for holding 4 river warriors. underlying neutral means that a region will start as neutral only if not allocated to a player as a start position.

koontz1973 wrote:19 territs surround the 7 kings (Need to be programmed with start position), Max of 5 per player.

consider whether it's more advantageous to set the 19 decaying regions (instead of the 19 adjacent to the 7 kings) as the second category of start positions. many won't play dust bowl again because they've started a game with many more decaying regions than their opponent.

ian.